What a surprise!
After eliminating the most sensitive electrosentive volunteers for being made too ill to continue the Essex study finds that electrosensitivity is all in the mind.
The BBC predictably quote Rubin - the king of other similarly flawed studies - to give the thumbs up.
See the BBC's predictably biased account here .
Predictably "old friends" are cooing here .
Read the Mast Sanity Press Release here.
Read Powerwatch's comments here .
Good of the Psychology department to conclude EHS is psychological. Maybe the Biophysics department would have been a better place to look?
Still, you get what you pay for and this one was paid for by the Mobile Phone Industry and the Government (although not very well paid, since most volunteers grumbled at how stingy the expenses paid were for travelling - £30 max I'm told).
Wednesday, 25 July 2007
Sunday, 1 July 2007
People can be Biased and so can their Research Data
Bias is defined as "an inclination to favour or disfavour one side against another in a dispute, competition, etc; a prejudice."
Scientific research can be manipulated by individuals with a specific bias or agenda to fit the result that they are after.
If you wanted to show that electrosensitivity is purely psychological you would set out with that premiss and build in fundamental flaws to your study that slanted the findings in that direction.
I am reliably informed, that a recent study into electrosensitivity was undertaken by Psychologists at a London College, in an unshielded room. This was said to "make it more realistic!" - yet with a large number of mobile phone masts and wi-fi installations in the College how could the "no-signal" / "sham" exposure be valid?
The (single) frequency chosen of 900MHz is the same as for 2 Mobile Phone Operators with masts in the vicinity and is not necessarily the frequency that an electrosensitive person may be most sensitive to.
A large number of the electrosensitive participants had to leave early since they found the experiment made them feel too ill. The overall number of participants at 90 was not a large enough sample to make the general, sweeping, conclusions made in the conclusion.
Biological samples of saliva and blood was taken although blood pressure was not taken. Crucially none of the biological samples were included in the research results - the survey question papers were all that was used to determine the results.
Did the biological samples contradict the survey results? Only the researchers know.
The mobile phone units used in the experiment only had the 900MHz circuit disabled, all other parts of the phone were working even during the sham phase, so any sensitivity to the devices themselves, which many electrosensitive people have (in conjunction to the lack of shielding in the room) could well explain the results found.
The conclusion (surprise, surprise) "The signals produced by 900 MHz GSM mobile phones do not cause greater subjective symptoms than sham exposures in which no signal is present, even in people who report sensitivity to mobile phones. The symptoms reported by “sensitive” people may be the result of a nocebo effect and may be primarily psychological in origin".
The study in question? The much quoted Rubin study by Dr. Rubin.
Biased - you decide. The research slanted - you decide.
Incidentally, when was it decided to ditch the scientific idea that physical observations take precedence over scientific theories? If the physical evidence contradicts the theory it must be the theory that is WRONG - however well accepted (or entrenched).
[ As an interesting aside I spotted an article called "The false gods of scientific medicine revealed: It's a cult, not a science" which rightfully calls into question the dodgy science used to justify western medicine. One comment I have on the piece is that the 1000% increase in ADHD corresponds with the rise in electrosmog from Mobile Phone Masts and other wireless devices and can not simply be dismissed as a bogus disease. See also a recent addition to the EHS vs. 'Skeptics' debate.]
Scientific research can be manipulated by individuals with a specific bias or agenda to fit the result that they are after.
If you wanted to show that electrosensitivity is purely psychological you would set out with that premiss and build in fundamental flaws to your study that slanted the findings in that direction.
I am reliably informed, that a recent study into electrosensitivity was undertaken by Psychologists at a London College, in an unshielded room. This was said to "make it more realistic!" - yet with a large number of mobile phone masts and wi-fi installations in the College how could the "no-signal" / "sham" exposure be valid?
The (single) frequency chosen of 900MHz is the same as for 2 Mobile Phone Operators with masts in the vicinity and is not necessarily the frequency that an electrosensitive person may be most sensitive to.
A large number of the electrosensitive participants had to leave early since they found the experiment made them feel too ill. The overall number of participants at 90 was not a large enough sample to make the general, sweeping, conclusions made in the conclusion.
Biological samples of saliva and blood was taken although blood pressure was not taken. Crucially none of the biological samples were included in the research results - the survey question papers were all that was used to determine the results.
Did the biological samples contradict the survey results? Only the researchers know.
The mobile phone units used in the experiment only had the 900MHz circuit disabled, all other parts of the phone were working even during the sham phase, so any sensitivity to the devices themselves, which many electrosensitive people have (in conjunction to the lack of shielding in the room) could well explain the results found.
The conclusion (surprise, surprise) "The signals produced by 900 MHz GSM mobile phones do not cause greater subjective symptoms than sham exposures in which no signal is present, even in people who report sensitivity to mobile phones. The symptoms reported by “sensitive” people may be the result of a nocebo effect and may be primarily psychological in origin".
The study in question? The much quoted Rubin study by Dr. Rubin.
Biased - you decide. The research slanted - you decide.
Incidentally, when was it decided to ditch the scientific idea that physical observations take precedence over scientific theories? If the physical evidence contradicts the theory it must be the theory that is WRONG - however well accepted (or entrenched).
[ As an interesting aside I spotted an article called "The false gods of scientific medicine revealed: It's a cult, not a science" which rightfully calls into question the dodgy science used to justify western medicine. One comment I have on the piece is that the 1000% increase in ADHD corresponds with the rise in electrosmog from Mobile Phone Masts and other wireless devices and can not simply be dismissed as a bogus disease. See also a recent addition to the EHS vs. 'Skeptics' debate.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)